• Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.

Windows NT on Power Macs

IPalindromeI

Well-known member
Seems like it /may/ be possible to get NT running on Power Mac. The big stopping point is different firmware - Power Macs have OF, but NT needs ARC. However, there were OF systems that shipped with NT - they used veneer, as shipped on the NT CD, to basically shim ARC calls to OF, and then load NT. From there, it's a matter of HW support, Apple's firmware misbehaving under little endian mode, and other such mischief.

https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=413162#p413162

https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=416039#p416039

 

Themk

Well-known member
Hmm, interesting development! How cool!

Would a New World system be better, or worse, suited for the task of running NT4 PowerPC?

 

commodorejohn

Well-known member
Interesting notion, but wasn't NT/PPC dropped before the G3, and isn't OpenFirmware only available on New World (G3 and later) Macs?

 

Themk

Well-known member
I can see where this is going... once someone gets NT4 PPC running on a Power Macintosh, someone is going to invariably ask "Can it run <insert commercial x86 Windows software here>". 1. the software likely doesn't even work on NT4, 2. It is guaranteed to be x86 too.

 

commodorejohn

Well-known member
I can see where this is going... once someone gets NT4 PPC running on a Power Macintosh, someone is going to invariably ask "Can it run <insert commercial x86 Windows software here>". 1. the software likely doesn't even work on NT4, 2. It is guaranteed to be x86 too.
IIRC, NT/PPC actually has an emulator for x86, but it only works with Win16 software...

 

bunnspecial

Well-known member
NT 3.5/NT 4.0 have always been a bit of an enigma to me in terms of processor support.

They're GREAT x86 OSs and so much more advanced than their contemporary Windows products-in fact Win 2K was NT 5.0, and I think all versions since XP have continued with an NT-series number.

With that said, NT supported a broad range of processors including SPARC, Alpha, and MIPS. I can't speak to the other two, but at least on MIPS the biggest user I'm aware of was SGI. It won't run on SGI systems. And, of course, it also won't run OOB on the most common PPC computers-I think the only PPC computers it officially supports are the few IBMs.

 

Themk

Well-known member
One thing Im wondering is how this would compare with Windows NT4 or 2000 in Virtual PC on a fast G4 or G5. I would expect native powerpc nt4 to be faster, but how much faster?

 

IPalindromeI

Well-known member
Sparc was cancelled. Alpha was the best supported target because of DEC's involvement, which Compaq quickly canned. MIPS was the second port after i860 (which never launched) but fell to the wayside, as did PPC.

There was also a cancelled ARM port... in the 90s. Most likely DEC due to source access, StrongARM and it still being competitive with Pentium of the time. Itanium, ARMv7, and now ARMv8 are the newer ports.

 

Cory5412

Daring Pioneer of the Future
Staff member
I don't think SGI thought it was worthwhile to support Windows NT on their MIPS hardware. I suspect that SGI knew at the time that Pentium Pro and Pentium II+ were going to hand MIPS its butt, and I think part of building the 320/540 was that SGI wanted to move their customers over to platforms that would be easier to support and better for the needs.

Remember, SGI wasn't really in the business of selling generic workstations and servers for chores. They were selling appliances for HPC and ultra high end graphics work, including video, 3d rendering, high end CAD, etc.

Unfortunately, the software developers didn't move over to NT-on-SGI and NT didn't really gain the ability to compete with SGI's highest end hardware (the Octane could use 8 gigs of RAM, for example) until well after MIPS had stopped being viable. SGI tried later to migrate their customers to Linux on Itanium, but I don't think they were having it then, either.

The last of the MIPS systems were bought and sold not because they were actually better than anything else at what they were doing, but on pure inertia.

Anyway MIPS sold chips to a few other companies (including, at least, NEC, I'm sure there were others) and they built NT-compatible MIPS systems.

Alpha would have been a super interesting target for NT4. As I understand, it's the basis for the 64-bit support Windows XP eventually got, so it would have been neat to see DEC/Compaq/HP put that in earlier to support their high end hardware well before Windows NT eventually got a 64-bit release in ~2003.

It would be interesting to see NT4 on Apple's PPC hardware, but I don't think it would end up being that special, mainly because there would be no software for it, and I don't know off hand if the PPC version of NT4 ever ended up with the x86 emulation bits. If they existed on PPC, they were certainly better on Alpha, where there was win32 support and where the fastest alphas at the time were competitive with Pentiums at PPC performance using that emulator. (Which is to say: Imagine a world where NT4/Alpha existed long enough to get more native software. Especially stuff that NT4 had and that Macs were used for frequently at the time.)

 

commodorejohn

Well-known member
Alpha would have been a super interesting target for NT4. As I understand, it's the basis for the 64-bit support Windows XP eventually got, so it would have been neat to see DEC/Compaq/HP put that in earlier to support their high end hardware well before Windows NT eventually got a 64-bit release in ~2003.
NT4 actually did run on Alpha. In fact, there's a working release candidate of 2000 that's totally usable for it, but support was dropped before the final release, presumably as part of the "everything but Itanium can just go hang" push around that time.

 

Compgeke

Well-known member
I think the only PPC computers it officially supports are the few IBMs.
HCL is actually surprisingly large, here's a rip directly from the HCL on the CD. You'll be hard pressed to find anything other than a few of the IBMs like the 43P though. Good luck finding any of the non-IBMs.

PowerPC Architecture Computers
The following PowerPC architecture uniprocessor systems have been tested.

Austin PowerPlay 604/100

Bull ESTRELLA DT604-100

Bull ESTRELLA DT604-133

Bull ESTRELLA MT604-100

Bull ESTRELLA MT604-133

Canon® PPC 604-100Mhz

FirePower Powerized ES3100

FirePower Powerized ES380

FirePower Powerized ES4100

IBM Personal Computer Power Series 850 (100 MHz)

IBM Personal Computer Power Series 850 (120 MHz)

IBM Personal Computer Power Series 850 (133 MHz)

IBM RISC System/6000™ 40P Series (66 MHz) System

IBM RISC System/6000 43P Series (100 MHz)

IBM RISC System/6000 43P Series (133 MHz)

IBM RISC System/6000 7024 Model E20 Server 604/100

IBM RISC System/6000 7024 Model E30 Server 604/133

IBM RISC System/6000 7025 Model F30 Server 604/133

IBM ThinkPad Power Series 820

IBM ThinkPad Power Series 850

Motorola® PowerStack RISC PC DT603-66

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC DT603E-100

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC DT604-100

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC DT604-133

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC MT603-66

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC MT603E-100

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC MT604-100

Motorola PowerStack RISC PC MT604-133

Motorola PowerStack Series E E603-66P

Motorola PowerStack Series E E604-100P

Motorola PowerStack Series E E604-133P

Motorola RISC PC Plus DTP603e-100

Motorola RISC PC Plus DTP604-100

Motorola RISC PC Plus DTP604-133

Motorola RISC PC Plus MTP 603e-100

Motorola RISC PC Plus MTP 604-100

Motorola RISC PC Plus MTP 604-133

Motorola SERIES EX 604-133

Motorola SERIES EX 604E-166

Tatung TPC-5740 (PPC 604/100)

Zenith Data Systems Z-POWER DT 604-100

Zenith Data Systems Z-POWER DT 604-133

Zenith Data Systems Z-POWER MT 604-100

Zenith Data Systems Z-POWER MT 604-133

PowerPC Multiprocessor Architecture Computers

The following PowerPC architecture uniprocessor systems have been tested.

Austin PowerPlay2 604/100 dual

Austin PowerPlay2 604/120 dual

Austin PowerPlay2 604/133 dual

Canon PW-100d

Canon PW-120d

Canon PW-130d

FirePower Powerized LX 4150/2

FirePower Powerized MX 4100/2

FirePower Powerized MX 4120/2

FirePower Powerized MX 4133/2

FirePower Powerized MX 4150/2
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IPalindromeI

Well-known member
NT4 actually did run on Alpha. In fact, there's a working release candidate of 2000 that's totally usable for it, but support was dropped before the final release, presumably as part of the "everything but Itanium can just go hang" push around that time.
Compaq did that, and they had no interest in Itanium - or anything not x86, for that matter. (Itanium is a different story.)

 

Cory5412

Daring Pioneer of the Future
Staff member
Whoops. 

NT4 actually did run on Alpha. In fact, there's a working release candidate of 2000 that's totally usable for it, but support was dropped before the final release, presumably as part of the "everything but Itanium can just go hang" push around that time.
I wrote that, but I completely can't remember why. DEC and Compaq had the source for NT4 and were the driving force behind the fact that Alpha was (before the ARM port with Windows RT) the most complete port of Windows to not-x86 there'd been. They also were the team that ported almost any software to Alpha.

I wonder if I meant Windows 2000 or Windows XP. XP eventually ended up on Itanium, but not an awful lot happened for it, in comparison to how complete the NT4/Alpha ecosystem had become. (Not that it was "complete" but that it was closer than, say, MIPS or PPC.)

Maybe I meant making NT4 a 64-bit release with support for more RAM. Some of the DEC Alpha hardware it could run on already supported more than 4 gigs of RAM.

 

bunnspecial

Well-known member
I have an NT 4.0 disk sitting on my desk at work, and I've been kicking around what I should install it on. I have an instrument running now on a 133mhz Pentium and Windows 3.11 and once I actually get the instrument fixed I'm going to get a newer version of the instrument software and migrate to XP on a P3. The independent engineer I've been working with tells me that XP is the newest version that he can get to work reliably. I'm stuck at a P3(realistically) because the interface card I have is ISA and I'm pushing it getting them to agree to $2500 to get the replacement part I need, much less a $1400 PCI card when I can use what have now.

Win2K is a personal minimum because if I want people to use it(and justify the investment), I need USB mass storage support. I also need to get it on the in-room network so that I don't have to maintain a separate printer.

In any case, the instrument and associated computer are actually now my personal property(long story, but it was given to my predecessor in the job and not the university) although the university will have a claim to it if they spend money to repair it. My point being that once I migrate to a(university owned) computer, I can take the P1 free and clear and then play with NT 4.0 on it.

I also have a PII and another PIII handy, although I might be pushing it to run NT 4.0 on those.

The real fun one would be the SGI Altix 3000 with 12 Itaniums in it. 

 

Gorgonops

Moderator
Staff member
I also have a PII and another PIII handy, although I might be pushing it to run NT 4.0 on those.
A PII or PIII with up to a 440BX chipset is an optimal candidate for NT 4.0; making it work on things much newer is where the teeth start hurting. PIII with an i810(+) or non-Intel chipset? Don't go there.

 

rsolberg

Well-known member
I ran NT4 on some 440LX chipset Pentium II systems for quite some time. I found the driver support for NT good for the chipset and add-in cards I was using. Those included an AGP Nvidia Riva 128, some AGP ATi Rage series, and an AGP ATi Radeon 7000, along with Ensoniq AudioPCIs for audio and Realtek-based PCI NICs. With 256MB of RAM, these 300 and 333MHz machines ran NT blazingly fast.

EDIT: I see Gorgonops beat me to it while I was typing. 440LX and 440BX systems were pretty much the last "Designed for Windows NT 4.0" hardware; as such, they work reliably and perform very well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bunnspecial

Well-known member
A PII or PIII with up to a 440BX chipset is an optimal candidate for NT 4.0; making it work on things much newer is where the teeth start hurting. PIII with an i810(+) or non-Intel chipset? Don't go there.
The PI I have has a "Made for NT" sticker on it.

The PII I'm eyeing is a Dell GX-1(I think) and I'm not sure if it's stickered or not but suspect it would work.

I'll have to check the PIIIs. They're desktop LoBos but are in 4U rackmount cases(I have a DA in a virtually identical case branded Marathon) . They have early slot dual PIIIs(look like PIIs on a casual glance) but I'll check the chipset. I know I have another computer with a similar processor set-up that has an NT sticker on it, so it should work-its big issue is that the 10K SCSis grate on me :) .

 
Top